Ghislain Lebel

[Parliament of Canada Act, September 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I vote yes.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I vote no on this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Budget Implementation Act, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I vote yes on this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 18, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will vote no.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this motion.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will vote in favour of these three motions.

[Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.

Several truckers from my riding are complaining that drivers who have the misfortune to prefer being served in French at the Thousand Islands and Windsor border crossings on their return to Canada get stuck for hours before anyone deigns to look after them.

Can the minister tell us if she intends to intervene with Canada Customs and Revenue Agency officials to put a stop to this?

[Sex Offender Information Registration Act, April 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am voting against this motion.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, April 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me, for the first time since I regained my freedom, to speak in this House as an independent. Not being bound by party discipline, I naturally intend to speak my mind about the budget allocations, the way the federal government is managing them and also the response of my friends, both in the Bloc Quebecois and the Canadian Alliance.

If Canada is what it is today, it is because Quebec, having been asked in 1867 to be part of this great Canadian federation, insisted on keeping its French language tradition, its customary rights or its Civil Code, created in the early 19th century from the Napoleonic Code, and also its right to freedom of religion. Otherwise, Canada would not be what it is today.

For all the other anglophone provinces in Canada, one all-powerful government sufficed. At the time, there was not much west of Ontario. The other provinces joined later. If the current system exists, it is because the province of Quebec insisted on keeping those rights that I have just named.

The constitutional jurisdictions were divided up under sections 91 and 92. Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 concerns federal jurisdictions, in which the federal government has the right to legislate, namely, defence, the postal service, divorce and aboriginals, to name but a few.

Quebec and the provinces, under section 92, have constitutional authority over such areas as education and health; I will not name all of them.

Unfortunately, I listened to the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois for Trois-Rivières, who is a friend, at least he was until I rose to speak; I do not know if he will be afterwards. I have trouble understanding this hon. member's attitude. In his speech, he mentioned, at least five times, referendums, nation building and the fact that Canada is about to become a new country coast to coast, A mari usque ad mare ; he told us that Canadians were not consulted, that they were not asked what they wanted for the future of their country.

The truth is subject to a double standard in this country. I would like to ask a few questions of my hon. friend from Trois-Rivières. In Quebec, did we have a referendum on municipal amalgamation? Did we have a referendum, or is anyone promising one, on the latest hot topic in Quebec, the negotiations with the Innu? Did we have a referendum when we, in this House, agreed to change the name of Newfoundland to Newfoundland and Labrador?

Did we have a referendum when we, in this place, adopted the Firearms Act? This issue is entirely relevant to the budget now before us. This slippage will have cost Canadians $1.25 billion. Moreover, it is an encroachment—and one of unprecedented scope—on areas of provincial jurisdiction, particularly freedom, civil law, property, and hunting and fishing. The issue of firearms control touches on many jurisdictions.

What did the Bloc Quebecois say against this? It was politically profitable, it seems. At the time, women's groups insisted that the act be passed, with no consideration of the areas of provincial jurisdiction that had been given to us under section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Just recently, this party voted an additional $60 million or so to implement the program. The only province that has not yet challenged it before the courts is Quebec.

Yet, is the message being sent—and this is my question to the hon. member for Trois-Rivières—that the federal government can meddle in our constitutional jurisdictions, as long as we gain from it financially? If we get funds, if the federal government gives us some money, it is no big deal. Are we prepared to take cash for these constitutional jurisdictions, which were granted to us very sparingly in 1867 only because we threatened not to become part of the Canadian federation? Now, if it is politically expedient, if there is some money to be gained, it is acceptable.

Take, for example, the negotiations with the Innu. An amount of $377 million will be paid to the Innu, who had claims before the courts that totalled a similar or slightly higher amount. The federal government will pay $300 million out of the $377 million. All of a sudden, the respective constitutional jurisdictions become less important, because the federal government will provide $300 million.

So, there may be a tendency to be more flexible in such cases and let things go. However, if we have principles, theys should always apply, even if they work against us. This is what a principle is all about. Sometimes, it may hurt to follow it, but the important thing is what results from it.

I have always found my Bloc Quebecois friends to be rather flexible on this issue, provided there were some economic spinoffs for the provinces. It is their choice and I respect it.

However, I say that when we have principles and when we jealously guard a constitution that we did not quite want but that governs us, we should at least try to have it complied with. Right now, we make sure it is complied with when there is nothing much to be gained, but when there is something to be gained, it is a different story.

Take the example of the municipalities. When the federal government arrives with its millions for municipalities, it will be interesting to see what happens. The mayors will ask for help from the province, and the province will look at its interests and say, “Let us go ahead with this”.

There is no doubt that the constitutional system in which we find ourselves is very bad for the provinces, and particularly for Quebec, since it stands apart from the others in confederation.

Our friends from the other parties, the anglophones in the rest of Canada wanted a single national government. They wanted a federal government. This is why we said that there were two nations in this country.

The fact remains that, speaking of referendums, I believe in the merits of referendums that the hon. member for Trois-Rivières seems to be promoting. All the better, except that this must apply at all times to our political reasoning, and not only when it suits us.

I also want to address our hon. colleagues in the Canadian Alliance, who say that friends like the Americans should not be treated as they have. Forgive me if I do not totally agree with them.

First, I would say that parliamentarians here are in no danger of getting killed in Iraq. It is easy to send other people's children, so long as we do not have to go ourselves or send our kids. Speaking of friends, I would say that when it came to defending their own interests, the Americans stomped all over the interests of Canada, their friend.

Take, for example, softwood lumber. When it came to defending their softwood lumber interests, our American friends did not show much respect for us. They did what they had to defend their interests.

Why is the government avoiding doing something in Canada's interests and the public's interests? If softwood lumber is important to the Americans, the lives of our children are as important to us, at least as much as wood is. If we cannot admit that, I think that there is something really wrong.

What I mean is that I support fully respecting our Constitution. The fact that there is too much money in federal coffers as the result of a tax authority benefiting the federal government and penalizing the provinces where the needs are, is why the current sovereignist movement in Quebec started. I am still a sovereignist, and I will probably die one.

However, we must apply our political theory or political principles right down the line; otherwise we end up contradicting ourselves. This can be dangerous for a cause's credibility. I mentioned, as an example, the Firearms Control Act. There are other examples.

I urge parliamentarians, when they are defending the interests of others, to defend them to the end, independently of their own interests.